Marriage entry twice

[Helen7]

It almost certain that Dolly was under 21, and that she married the first time without her parents' knowledge, let alone their permission. The likelihood is that the second ceremony was for the benefit of their families, permission having been gained in the interim.

Had the marriages been a few years later the names of the witnesses would have provided clues. See this newsletter article for a more recent example.

I agree this seems a very likely explanation, thanks. And thanks for reminding me about the newsletter article.

Incidentally, an impending birth wasn’t the reason for the haste of getting a marriage licence in this case. Their first child was baptised in April 1753, just over a year after the second wedding.

 

[Susan48]

Incidentally, an impending birth wasn’t the reason for the haste of getting a marriage licence in this case. Their first child was baptised in April 1753, just over a year after the second wedding.

Unless the bride was pregnant at the time of the marriage and then later miscarried - a possibility.

 

[Helen7]

Unless the bride was pregnant at the time of the marriage and then later miscarried - a possibility.

Well, yes, I had thought about that but thought it less likely given the timescale.

 

[Susan48]

You're right, the dates make it less likely that she was pregnant at the time of the marriage.

 

[peter]

You're right, the dates make it less likely that she was pregnant at the time of the marriage.

I'm not so sure - according to the Mayo Clinic a woman can become pregnant as soon as two weeks after a miscarriage. Plenty of time, especially for a pair of newly-weds, even if they didn't begin living together until after the second marriage (which is probable).

 

[sunflower]

It's because when they first married Robert didn't have the permission of his commanding officer.

That's a very good reason and one I had not thought of. Thank you.

Time to buy it, perhaps?

Times are hard for some of us but I will put it on my Christmas list.

 

[Pauline]

It almost certain that Dolly was under 21, and that she married the first time without her parents' knowledge, let alone their permission. The likelihood is that the second ceremony was for the benefit of their families, permission having been gained in the interim.

I'm afraid don't really find this a wholly satisfactory explanation.

Looking again at the marriage in Crich, the entry doesn't actually state if the marriage was by banns or by licence, and while some other marriages by licence in Crich were given as such, we can't assume from this that the marriage of Thomas and Dolly was definitely not by licence. That a licence had been obtained the day before the marriage in Crich makes it seem quite unlikely that they didn't use it for the ensuing marriage, and a simple omission in the register seems somewhat more likely.

This leaves two possibilities - either the marriage was valid and the subsequent marriage in Ashbourne was not only unnecessary but also irregular. And while all kinds of irregularities did occur, particularly before 1754, it seems odd that a clergyman would knowingly perform a second ceremony if the couple were already legally married.

If, however, the first marriage was deemed not to be valid because the bride was under age and had not obtained consent, then a new licence would have been needed as proof that this consent had now been given.

 

[peter]

I'm afraid don't really find this a wholly satisfactory explanation.

In my view it fits the known facts perfectly, but if new facts come to light there might be a better explanation.

This leaves two possibilities - either the marriage was valid and the subsequent marriage in Ashbourne was not only unnecessary but also irregular. And while all kinds of irregularities did occur, particularly before 1754, it seems odd that a clergyman would knowingly perform a second ceremony if the couple were already legally married.

Irregular marriages were very common at that time - that's why Lord Hardwicke's Act was passed in 1753. Surely the reason they married at Ashbourne on the second occasion was because the vicar at Crich knew they were already married, but the vicar at Ashbourne didn't?

The two churches may only be about 10 miles apart as the crow flies, but according to the radius search at FamilySearch Maps, there are more than 70 parishes which are closer to Crich than Ashbourne. How could the vicar of Ashbourne have known that they had been through another ceremony the previous month?

If, however, the first marriage was deemed not to be valid because the bride was under age and had not obtained consent, then a new licence would have been needed as proof that this consent had now been given.

We haven't seen the licence, but we do know that it was issued prior to the first marriage. We also know that, whether they married by banns or by licence, the marriage would still have been valid - it was only after 24th March 1754 that under-age marriages were void if parental consent had not been obtained.

Even after that date a marriage was still valid if the banns had been called in the wrong parish(es).

 

[Pauline]

How could the vicar of Ashbourne have known that they had been through another ceremony the previous month?

It was the vicar of Ashbourne who decreed the licence should be issued, though I guess that doesn’t necessarily mean he knew about the earlier marriage.

But I didn’t say I disagreed with the reason you suggested, I just felt things weren’t necessarily quite that simple and didn’t quite add up.

 

[Stuart]

The licence was granted to Thomas Clough and Jacob Spencer on 11/1/1752 and "Ashburn" by J Fitzherbert. The bond was to Richard Smallbroke, Doctor of Laws, vicar general of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry. John Fitzherbert was acting as surrogate to the bishop in principle, but under the diocesan legal officers in practice.

John Fitzherbert MA was vicar of Ashbourne with Mapleton 22/2/1750 to 20/11/1772 (also lecturer there from 28/5/1752, presumably as he was then an absentee). He was baptised 11/10/1718 in Derby, ordained as priest 29/5/1743, and died 10/11/1785 in Doveridge and was buried there aged 67. He was appointed vicar of Doveridge 24/2/1750, and continued as such until his death. He appointed curates at both parishes at various times.

The vicar of Wirksworth was Thomas Harris (with no curate) in 1752, and in Crich it was John Walker, with John Allwood as curate. I can't find anything about them in the papers. But John Fitzherbert was a member of a prominent local gentry family (Tissington Hall).

Those details come from the Clergy of the Church of England Database (theclergydatabase.org.uk) - which is well worth giving a plug as a useful source, even if it's not the clergyman you are interested it. Its coverage goes back from 1835 to before 1600, and it is one of the few on-line sources that far back.

Surrogates were appointed, but for some reason those appointments are not (as far as I can see) in the CCEd. So for one thing I have no idea what fraction of parish priests were also surrogates and could issue licences.

If the validity of the licence, and thus of the marriage, had been questioned by their local vicar, they may have preferred to go back to Fitzherbert for a repeat - and get his authority behind their new marriage.

 

[peter]

If the validity of the licence, and thus of the marriage, had been questioned by their local vicar

If that were the case one would expect there to have been some annotation against the register entry - there isn't. And if he did question the validity of the marriage, he was wrong to do so. Why look for a complicated solution when there's a simple one available?

Bear in mind that Thomas Clough stood to lose £100 if he broke the conditions of the bond - I can't imagine him putting an enormous sum like that at risk.

 

[Pauline]

Those details come from the Clergy of the Church of England Database (theclergydatabase.org.uk) - which is well worth giving a plug as a useful source, even if it's not the clergyman you are interested it. Its coverage goes back from 1835 to before 1600, and it is one of the few on-line sources that far back.

That's where I went for my information on Fitzherbert, and I agree it's a very useful resource.

 

[Helen7]

Well, what a discussion my initial post has generated! Thanks for all your contributions, and thanks, Stuart, for the tip about the clergy database.

I understand the Fitzherbert family are still at Tissington Hall today.

 

[Pauline]

Why look for a complicated solution when there's a simple one available?

I guess at the end of the day, that simple or complicated, likely or unlikely, at this distance from the event we can only speculate as to why they married twice.

 

[sunflower]

Well, what a discussion my initial post has generated!

I quite agree, it has been very interesting and informative and a long way from my initial post which was answered by Peter a while ago.

 

[peter]

I guess at the end of the day, that simple or complicated, likely or unlikely, at this distance from the event we can only speculate as to why they married twice.

Whilst we can never be absolutely certain, it seems likely that their thought processes would have been similar to those of other couples who did the same thing, but did it more recently (so that we have more evidence to go on). So not speculation, but informed judgement.

Of course, it may well be that Helen has more information about the families that she hasn't shared with us.

 

[Helen7]

Of course, it may well be that Helen has more information about the families that she hasn't shared with us.

Not really, and nothing to indicate why Thomas and Dolly married twice in two different parishes, neither of which was their home parish.

Thomas and Dolly went on to baptise nine children between 1753 and 1772, all in Wirksworth. Thomas lived to the age of 86 and was buried in Wirksworth in 1813, Dolly having died 10 years earlier, and also buried there. As mentioned earlier, Dolly was baptised in Wirksworth in 1733 (parents Samuel and Dorothy nee Bomer, married in Wirksworth in 1730). I haven't been able to trace Thomas's origins with any certainty, so he may have been born elsewhere, but by the time of the marriage had clearly settled in Wirksworth, so I'd have thought under normal circumstances they would have married there, and just the once. It does seem likely that they got a licence to marry in Crich/Ashbourne to keep it secret from Dolly's parents.

 

[peter]

Of course, it may well be that Helen has more information about the families that she hasn't shared with us.

Not really

In cases like these the level of wealth of the families is a useful indicator. Licences were expensive - I think they cost £5, which for a miner would be an awful lot of money.

It may be that Dolly's family had money. Incidentally, the fact that he was a miner could well explain why you've had trouble establishing where Thomas came from - miners tended to move around the country.

EDIT: after further research I've discovered the cost of licences seems to have varied considerably and may have been as little as five shillings in the first half of the 18th century.

 

[Pauline]

In cases like these the level of wealth of the families is a useful indicator. Licences were expensive - I think they cost £5, which for a miner would be an awful lot of money.
It may be that Dolly's family had money. Incidentally, the fact that he was a miner could well explain why you've had trouble establishing where Thomas came from - miners tended to move around the country.

Thomas Clough described himself as a yeoman in his will, and mentions his "real estate both freehold and copyhold", so he clearly had some wealth by then, if not earlier. Being a miner could mean anything from the poorest of labourers to a mine manager, or even an owner.

Dolly's father also left a will, describing himself as a "carpinter", and left Dolly sixty pounds.

 

[Helen7]

Thomas Clough described himself as a yeoman in his will, and mentions his "real estate both freehold and copyhold",

I have the 1843 will of Thomas's son John (died 1844) - my 4x great-grandfather - who describes himself as a yeoman, with property. However, I couldn't find the will of Thomas Clough (died 1813). Where did you find that?

Edit: Whoops, sorry, just found it on FMP. Don't know how I missed it before! Some useful info in there I'll need to investigate.

Dolly's father also left a will, describing himself as a "carpinter", and left Dolly sixty pounds.

I've found the will of Dolly's father Samuel (dated 1782) and, though describing himself as a carpenter, he clearly was a man of some means, leaving freehold and copyhold property to his son, and sums of sixty and fifty pounds to his daughters (not inconsiderable sums in the 1780s). So it does look as though Dolly's family had some money.